Tuesday, December 31, 2013

The New York Times Sinks Beneath Contempt InTrying To Rewrite Benghazi

You can always rely on Pravda-on-the-Hudson..to lie, to hide things away for its Leftist agenda, and in general to soil any notion of what we normally think of as journalism.

A case in point is a recent New York Times 'blockbuster' on Benghazi, which pretty much denies that al-
Qaeda was involved, (which would certainly be news to al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia, who carried out the attack) and that it was primarily a spontaneous riot caused mostly by that obscure video no one had seen and hardly anyone in the Muslim world or the West had heard about until it was seized on by the Obama Administration to protect the president and former Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Or that an independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings from Benghazi found no reference to the video until the day after the attack.

What this is about, of course is Hillary Clinton's assessment of what effect Benghazi is going to have on her planned 2016 run. So some talking points are necessary to cover her pants suit clad behind, as her acolytes repeat the mantra 'according to the New York Times...'

I wouldn't even mention this ridiculous attempt to rewrite history except for the latest claim in response to criticism of this nonsense by Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick, 'Oh we had a reporter embedded with the attackers who talked to them.'